Unsorted FBI Documents

o e.

Ca-

O

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU #2105 Case file # 95-261981.

Material Examiner: Malone IRQ)

Remarks:

Case resulted in guilty plea No transcript .

t

11/14/00

Independent Review conducted by: . Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: - Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 12:00 PM (Time),

File #: 95-261981

Laboratory #(s): 40530024 41 130003

40703045, 40713007
41017010

Examinees) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

XD

a

□

□

VI, VQ

a

XD

□

□

UI, VJ

□

Xa

D

□

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcripts) of:

Testimony Date(s): Pages:

Laboratory Reports):

Laboratory Number.
Laboratory Number:
Laboratory Number.

Examiner Bench Notes of:

Laboratory Number

40530024 Date:

40530024. 40703045. 40713007 Date:

41017010 Date

41130003

RQ

40530024

40703045.40713007

41017010

41130003

Page 1 of 5

June 11, 1984

Aug 28, 1984

Nov 15, 1984
Jan 25, 1985

Initials :

□ No

Was any other material reviewed? Xo Yes
If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: Submitting agency lottos dated 5/29/84, 6/29/84, 7/10/84;

10/10/84, 11/26/84

Results of Review

File #: 95-261981 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Ql, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5,Q6, Q9, Q10,

Qll, Q12, Q13, Q23, K2, K5-K1Q, K1 1, K16

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the

methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)?

D Yes OX No O Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reports) supported and adequately documented in

the bench notes? □ Yes OX No □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

□X Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory reports)?

4) Testimony consistent with die bench notes?

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise?

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

□ Yes

o No

□ Unable to Determine

t.

Page 2 of 5

Initials:

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.

• Use “ Additional Comments” Sheet; if needed) ' . '

File#: 95-261981 .

• ’ ' * . * * ' • r.V; > >A- . •

#1 . While it appears the appropriate tests were performed, it cannot be stated they were done in a scientifically
acceptable manner due to the following reasons:

A. Color comparison using the nficrospectrophotometer was done on the Q2, Q3, Q5, Q12, Q13, and K16
fibers but was not done on the Q 1 or Q23 fibers (see notes on 41130003).

B. It is difficult to evaluate the comparison of color using the microspectrophotometer. There is some degree
of variation between the Q and K fibers being compared, but the criteria used at the time of analysis to determine
a match is not known.

C. Infrared analysis to specifically identify and compare the polymer composition as nylon was done on the
Q3 and K16 fibers but was not done on die Ql, Q2, Q5, Q12, Q13, Q23 fibers (see notes on 41130003).

File#: 95-261981

#1 (continued): .~,-.v*r ; ... >*. ^

a photocopy and not an original, contains some data on tire diameter, birefringence and sign of elongation, but is

not marked with case or item number, initials or date. It cannot be determined which fiber was used to obtain this

data. Conclusions based upon undocumented or incomplete data is not scientifically acceptable.

E. Some original notes have been blackened out In one instance, the original notes indicate the color of some

of the fibers as “reddish-orange” and this has been altered to read “red” (see notes on 4107010).

# 2. The results are not adequately documented in die notes. The notes are not dated, are mostly in pencil and not

ink and use abbreviation that are difficult to interpret (such as “ftfvte” in the fiber examination and “M-lt dist.

It indist, dk dist” and “cut-ssp” to describe some of die hair characteristics).

The technician’s notes in 40530024 do not document the recovery of any hair or fiber from QI, Q2, Q3, Q12 or

Q13.

One page of notes is marked with only “Q9" and “Q10 M . It appears there was something stapled to this page and

it has been removed.

Page 2 of the report dated Jan. 25, 1985 (41130003) states the Q fibers “both microscopically and

instmmentally match” the carpet fibers. “Instrumentaily match” is a vague term open to interpretation. It would

be better to state specifically how die fibers match (color, composition, etc.)

Comments in #1A, 1C and ID above also apply to question #2.

The report dated Jan 25, 1985 (4113003) states the fibers from the victim match the Q101 carpet fibers from

the suspect’s car (in 41129002). No documentation could be found to indicate Q101 fibers were analyzed.

Instead, the examiner analyzed K16 fibers, identified as fibers from the front right floorboard of the suspect’s

vehicle. Q101 is identified as die front passenger floor carpet

Page 4 of 5

Initials:

Hie following cases report an association of the victim with Robert Joe Long’s vehicle based upon fiber
comparisons: 95-261981, 95-264272, 95-263655, 95-263981, 95-261223, 95-263573, 95-264331.

All fibers involved in the association were apparently compared microscopically, and selected fibers were
further analyzed instruraentally, using infrared spectroscopy and/or nticrospectrophotometry. The review
involved comparing the instrumental data in each case to the instrumental data in the other cases. The
instrumental fiber data support the conclusions made associating the victims with Robert Joe Long.